Gay couple claim they were ejected from pub for kissing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ed-pub-kissing

Two men have spoken of their shock and anger after they were asked to leave a bar in London after a member of staff apparently objected to them kissing.

Jonathan Williams, a journalist for a financial trade magazine, and James Bull, a charity volunteer, say they were ejected from the John Snow on Broadwick Street, Soho, by a woman who claimed to be the landlady and said they were being "obscene".

Pub is probably going to be in trouble if this is true.

Only if they are shown to have treated the men differently on account of them being gay. If the landlord doesn't want overt displays of affection on his premises he is entitled to stop it.

[Mick Fisher]

A hetrosexual couple having a snog in public might suffer the same fate, just have a laugh about it and change their local.

[Welshchris]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

A hetrosexual couple having a snog in public might suffer the same fate, just have a laugh about it and change their local.

This is it, im sometimes embarrased by some of these gay people who do something and then shout HOMOPHOBIA when they cannot get their own way!

I know of a case where a gay couple were thrown out for heavy petting and took the landlord to court over discrimination, what they didnt realise was about an hour before they arrived a str8 couple was thrown out for the same thing and had witnesses to prove it so the whole discrimination thing was thrown out. The reason is a lot of older people drink in the pub and get upset by seeing this kind of thing but gays especially men can get very uptight if they think for some reason they have been done a wrong even if its them to blame i see it all the time on the gay scene and i fell like slapping each of them.

I dont know if this is the case here and cant say if it is or not but i know it does happen.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

A hetrosexual couple having a snog in public might suffer the same fate, just have a laugh about it and change their local.

Well I imagine they might be rather embarrassed. However if was the case they were kicked out because they were displaying signs of affection rather than it being based on their sexuality then that's a lot less insulting and easier to shrug off. If, say, they were in a gay bar and where kicked out for their heterosexuality then they may feel a lot angrier.

---------- Post added at 16:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Welshchris

This is it, im sometimes embarrased by some of these gay people who do something and then shout HOMOPHOBIA when they cannot get their own way!

If your embarrassed than it's kind of your problem, not theirs. I might also feel rather embarrassed because it would be something I do not usually see and I would be very self-aware not to appear like I am shocked. However this is my problem and I don't think I have the right to tell them to change their behaviour to suit my own eccentricities.

I know of a case where a gay couple were thrown out for heavy petting and took the landlord to court over discrimination, what they didnt realise was about an hour before they arrived a str8 couple was thrown out for the same thing.

Heavy petting is different to kissing but if the landlord can prove such a thing, and I guess he could what with the other witnesses, then the gay couple would (should?) have been unsuccessful in their lawsuit. Still, two incidents of couples needing to be kicked out due to heavy petting within the space of a couple of hours? Must have been something in the air that night.

The reason is a lot of older people drink in the pub and get upset by seeing this kind of thing but gays especially men can get very uptight if they think for some reason they have been done a wrong even if its them to blame i see it all the time on the gay scene and i fell like slapping each of them.

See my first point. They haven't done anything wrong if it's simply because these 'older people' don't like gay people.

[Welshchris]

Damien, if what they are doing is upsetting the other people in the pub gay or str8 then they are doing something wrong as a landlord will always go with the majority of the people in the pub.

This is what i was saying about that one i was telling u about, he wasnt at all discriminating he just didnt want the other people in the pub annoyed by it and they have as much rights as the ones doing what they were doing.

Originally Posted by Welshchris

Damien, if what they are doing is upsetting the other people in the pub gay or str8 then they are doing something wrong as a landlord will always go with the majority of the people in the pub.

This is what i was saying about that one i was telling u about, he wasnt at all discriminating he just didnt want the other people in the pub annoyed by it and they have as much rights as the ones doing what they were doing.

What right does the majority have to suppress the rights of others? As long as those rights are the same everyone else has then someone's sexuality shouldn't remove it.

[Gary L]

I think if they were told already about it. then I expect they were taking the pee the second and third time. probably exaggerating it all the more.

that's what I'd say happened, anyway.

We'll have to wait for the outcome when it goes to court.
I presume it's automatically going to be a court hearing?

Damien, I think you need to slow down a bit. Stop trying so hard to get offended on behalf of other people. You are making a pretty huge assumption that the landlord was 'suppressing' anyone.

This is not going to go any further unless the couple concerned think they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord kicked them out for doing something gay.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

I presume it's automatically going to be a court hearing?

It won't ... the Equality Act allows individuals to take court action if they feel discriminated against, but it's not a criminal offence that would be pursued by the police and CPS.

[Welshchris]

Originally Posted by Damien

What right does the majority have to suppress the rights of others? As long as those rights are the same everyone else has then someone's sexuality shouldn't remove it.

and what right does the minority have to upset the majority of others? it works both ways.

Originally Posted by Chris

Damien, I think you need to slow down a bit. Stop trying so hard to get offended on behalf of other people. You are making a pretty huge assumption that the landlord was 'suppressing' anyone.

This is not going to go any further unless the couple concerned think they can prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord kicked them out for doing something gay.

I was referring to Welshchris's suggestion that the majority of people in the pub he mentioned had a right not to have to see a gay couple kissing. I was saying that preventing them from doing so on the basis of being gay would be suppressing their right.

Originally Posted by Welshchris

and what right does the minority have to upset the majority of others? it works both ways.

They are not harming anyone, or stopping them from doing anything. The majority should learn to tolerate others.

Originally Posted by Welshchris

and what right does the minority have to upset the majority of others? it works both ways.

chris are you gay or do you just go to the clubs with friends? I think Damien has the wrong idea here . You are not discriminating

Originally Posted by Zing

chris are you gay or do you just go to the clubs with friends? I think Damien has the wrong idea here . You are not discriminating

Huh? I presumed he was talking about a gay couple being asked to leave in a non-gay pub?

Originally Posted by Damien

Huh? I presumed he was talking about a gay couple being asked to leave in a non-gay pub?

I was just asking chris the question because he mentioned spending time in the gay scene and the other day he mentioned a couple of gay clubs iirc he visitied.

Now I do not know if he is gay but it certainly means he isnt anti gay I believe

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Damien

What right does the majority have to suppress the rights of others? As long as those rights are the same everyone else has then someone's sexuality shouldn't remove it.

You might have a point, if we knew that the Landlord objected because they were Gay, and happily allowed straight couples to do the same thing. We don't know if he does.

Having been to Soho for a drink on a few occassions, and seen some of the punters there, I think he's probably working in the wrong area if he is homophobic.

A couple of friends of mine had something similar happen. They are both Indian. One is a woman, and one a man.

We'd gone out drinking with the woman to a favourite local pub, and she got a little loud (not angry, just shouting and laughing while drunk). The Landlord threw her out. We thought it was because she was being loud.

A few weeks later, my boss, who is also Indian and certainly not loud (although he isn't shy and retiring either) went into the same pub for a quiet pint. He was also asked to leave. I am not sure what happened after that, but the chain that owned that pub moved the landlord elsewhere and eventually sold the pub.

Ironically, it's actually a much nicer pub now, and they even happily serve my boss (the lady has long since married and moved up north).

That case, I would say, is clearly racism. The case in the news (based on what is written) is not clearly homophobia.

In fact, if it isn't homophobia and they claim it is, they are cheapening the plight of those who are geniunly suffering homophobia (you know, those being insulted or assaulted because of their sexuality) by comparing their experiences (which may be quiet severe) to a peck on the cheek.

Also, it depends on the kiss. If it was a small kiss on the lips, or a peck on the check, most people would not be offended. If it was a full on frenchie with tongues in mouth and lots of noise, people may well have been offended whether it was man to man, man to woman or woman to woman.